send_email

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that sending is irreversible, what account/permission is required, whether delivery failure is reported, or any rate limits – critical for an outbound-message tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of thin coverage rather than disciplined editing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutating, irreversible tool with no annotations and rich sibling tooling (reply, forward), the description omits usage routing, side-effect disclosure, and auth expectations – too thin for this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 8 parameters (to, cc, bcc, subject, body_text, body_html, reply_to, attachments) is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the correct baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (send) and resource (new email) plus the account context (METU Webmail). The word 'new' implicitly separates it from reply_email and forward_email, but the description never names those siblings, so the distinction is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by 'new email' – an agent can guess this is for composing rather than replying or forwarding, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling mail tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.